Praudhamanorama p157

p157

"In each class, the first two are unvoiced, the even-numbered are aspirates, the last is nasalized."
[Objection:] In dadhisecaḥ and the like, in order to prevent retroflexion in a compound before the production of case endings, an ablative tatpuruṣa compound padād ādiḥ ('beginning from a pada') was stated in the Mahābhāṣya as padādiḥ. Consequently, here too the prohibition "sātpadādyoḥ" (Pā. Sū. 8.3.111) would apply? [Reply:] Do not say so; because by the mention of sāti it is indicated that the said prohibition does not operate by relying on the designation pada that is prescribed in "svādiṣu..." (Pā. Sū. 1.4.17). As for what they say—that it is indicated that this prohibition does not apply in the domain of an affix—that is incorrect, because retroflexion would improperly apply in vyatise and the like. [Objection:] On the view that it means 'the beginning of a pada' (padasya ādiḥ), retroflexion in vyatise is unavoidable. Nor should it be suspected that se also has the status of a pada because of being a tiṅ-ending through treating a single element as if it were the whole (vyapadeśivadbhāva); for when an affix is mentioned, only that which begins with that after which it is prescribed is grasped. Otherwise, the prohibition of retroflexion would undesirably apply even in rāmeṣu and the like? [Reply:] True. We do not say that a mere affix ends in that [pada], but rather, by the maxim of an element altered in one part (ekadeśavikṛtanyāya), we extend the designation pada that had applied to the aggregate of base and affix even to the affix whose base has undergone elision. For even in rāmau, rāmāḥ, and the like, the status of a pada is only by the maxim of an element altered in one part, since the designation pada applies prior to the single replacement. But once the single replacement has been made, there is no application of "suptiṅantam..." (Pā. Sū. 1.4.14), because it is established that when taking both sides into account, it does not behave like the final or initial element.
As for what they say—that in the proximity of a base, an affix does not have the status of a pada, because of explicit forms such as mantreṣu and sarveṣām—that is weak; because since the absence of pada status is established by reasoning in the stated manner, an indication is impossible and serves no purpose.
sarvādīni sarvanāmāni (Pā. Sū. 1.1.27). In sarvādīni, it is a bahuvrīhi compound in which the quality itself is included (tadguṇasaṃvijñāna), on account of the explicit formulation "hali sarveṣām" (Pā. Sū. 8.3.22).